I'm late to the game on this. When the controversy erupted over the "Why Are Black Women Less Attractive" blog post, I was traveling. By the time I caught up, the cavalry had already taken to the blogwaves to point out the myriad deficiencies in the so-called scientific reasoning of he-who-shall-not-be-named-or-given-additional-publicity. My ride left without me, as it were.

Though I must admit, when I finally got around to reading the by-then-removed post, I was anything but surprised. I've been blogging on the site for almost three years now and I guess I've long since grown numb to the unfalsifiable, pseudo-scientific speculation some bloggers–and one in particular–try to pass off as psychological science.

I recall the first time I encountered one of you-know-who's posts, just a few weeks after I started blogging. In it, he claimed that "all stereotypes are true." His evidence for this bold assertion? The circular argument that "If they are not true, they wouldn't be stereotypes."

Aw, Aristotle would have been so proud.

So I got agitated and wrote a polite, yet detailed response outlining the problems with this perspective. In retrospect, the politeness was unwarranted. I had given the author the benefit of the doubt, assuming that he knew better but just chose his words poorly. But the provocative yet irresponsibly unscientific posts just kept coming.

Just this spring I recall–against my better judgment–clicking on yet another treatise on the pressing psychological question of the day: in this case, why does Victoria Beckham have male children? The answer, according to the post? Well, it must be that she has a sexually promiscuous past. Because, really, when you think about it, there's no other logical explanation, right?

This weekend's post on attractiveness and race certainly merited the quick and decisive criticism it engendered. (And please take note: as the immediate and vocal responses demonstrate, this particular blog post is anything but representative of the current state of psychological science.) But let's not pretend that it came out of the blue. This is a blogger who relishes his own perceived iconoclasm and equates controversial statements with scientific innovation.

I'm sure at some point we'll get to his side of the story. There will be allegations that he's a victim of "political correctness" and has been pilloried for discussing that which the rest of us are too timid to address. (Of course, the problem wasn't raising the issue of race and attractiveness; it was offering imprecise conclusions with half-assed and offensive explanations and passing it off as scientific analysis.)

There will be a wink and a shrug and an argument of, hey, don't blame the messenger–I'm just relaying what the data tell us. I mean, I used the word "objective" and had graphs and everything! (A hard case to make when you don't describe the data accurately and make no effort to actually test the purely speculative explanations you pull out of thin air because, by your own admission, you can't think of anything else.)

And there will inevitably be some tongue-in-cheek reference to a Black female celebrity that he finds attractive, complete with cleavage-focused photo to bolster his assertion of personal impartiality.

But by now, we all know better. This is precisely what you should expect from someone who considers provocation to be the same as good science–who thinks that empirical inquiry means reading something somewhere and using the first thing that pops into your head to explain it.

Sure, other bloggers have also used their Psychology Today platform to advance political ideology or other non-scientific arguments. And I often find myself exasperated with those posts as well, even when I happen to agree with the ideology in question. But at least they're usually offered as opinion pieces and clearly identifiable as such.

From a disciplinary perspective, that's the major crime here: this post was presented as a scientific analysis. As many others have pointed out, it failed miserably on that count, several times over. No one is curtailing free speech; anyone can blog about anything they want to on their own time and website. But Psychology Today gives its bloggers relative carte blanche, and with it comes the assumption that those of us with academic and professional credentials will use this expertise responsibly.

Like it or not, the burden is higher when you're a scientist blogging about science. And anyone who can only think of one explanation for an observed difference in a data set might simply be incapable of meeting that high burden.

So it's not allowed in the USA to say what its own citizens find attractive anymore then.
How utterly absurd.

Pretty obviously, the reason that most people don't find ethnic Africans attractive is that they have wide, big noses, huge bulbous lips, and generally to most people 'alien' facial features.
The 'preudice' is not involved is clear by the fact that the ethnic type considered most attractive is not Caucasian but Asian.

Academics in the USA do -- as usual -- need to lose their daft ideology big time ... or just resign.

Satoshi actually was downplaying the obviously genetic basis of a clearly different facial type in guessing that greater testosterone levels in female ethnic Africans is behind it.
This plays to the ignorant gallery that assumes that systematically differing hormonal levels are not themselves firmly indicative of genetic difference, when of course they very much are.
But, clearly, the difference is not (or not just) testosterone-driven, or butch Caucasian women would look like Africans.
So that would be a basis on which to criticise Satoshi -- for being too ready to suck up to PC bigots.

It strikes me that provoking US academic fools is something of which we can't have enough.

why did Kanazawa's "study" rank African males the highest in attractiveness (besides the fact that he has a mancrush on them)? By your reasoning, ANYONE with African features would automatically be ranked lower. Moreover, how do you sweep "ugly" white women that I see everyday (and I do mean EVERY day) under the rug, if ANYONE with Anglicized features represent the pinnacle of human beauty?

Do you see why sweeping generalizations of groups of people simply do not work?

Politically Correct academics need to be fired and paraded through the streets for people to laugh at them.
They should also be forced to pay back their salary for fraud and services not delivered. That's what would happen in a market research firm.
But it's not just the USA that's the problem. Everywhere in the West is. I wonder if North East Asia has this problem.

Okay, “race” as it is described- hair, features, skin color is insignificant in the evolutionary schema. But perhaps in culture it is, which in turn would prompt cultural values and social sculpting on opinions of what is “right” and “wrong” of a woman or- beautiful.
In reality a woman, any woman represents (and presents) the features of the man that she comes from. The skin, the hair, the features and proof of her ability to produce her presentations (which are her female parts). It is not credible that an African man would be considered attractive while an African woman would be considered unattractive, when she is presenting (physically) what she is able to produce-the African man! That is- it is not credible evolutionally, but only socially. Which is proof of social manipulation (teaching and training and pressuring) to accept certain norms.
If Kanazawa, as an example, was to grow his hair very long (which he is well able to do) and put some lipstick on, he would likely look like his mother, or someone else’s. That’s because the differences between male and female don’t have to do with facial features. Men and women both inherit features from their mother and father. While those that took the poll may believe that African woman were less attractive, their belief or understanding came from social sculpting.
Here is another perspective, one that could’ve been instilled given political power (and the fear of losing it):
“Manly includes” the thin hard looking lips, pointy very long nose, white and hairy skin.
“Womanly includes” cures as many that can be put together in one frame-including curly hair, full lips, breast, and behinds. Smooth (hairless) brown skin. Again in reality these features are found on male and females. These are presentations of possible reproduction.
And what about African’s producing more testosterone. The benefits of testosterone for women need to be looked into, instead of presenting that information as if any amount less of testosterone is better (for women) or more feminine. Testosterone is being studied for improving sex drive (which is very crucial in an evolutionally context) decreasing depression (just look at this epidemic in some women!) as well as osteoporoses-can’t push out a baby if you break a hip. Science always starts with theory. Kanazawa’s was faulty from the beginning. I guess my point is that these people’s opinion are socially induced and not evolutionary-which means those opinions will likely change.

Marriage and family creates a sense of personal relationship that continues out through the community and makes civilization possible. In sub-Saharan Africa the family is weak and there is no civilization. With the hair, faces, and skin color of the negroes, a reproducing pair does not spend much time together. This keeps the society depersonalized and makes civilization impossible. Separate tribes of males and females are depersonalizing, and that contributed to an African society where slavery was common. In the great Eurasian civilizations marriage and family are intensely important.

I'll give you points for trying. Most people make no attempt to explain the obvious lack of civilization and the obvious presence of slavery.

"In sub-Saharan Africa the family is weak and there is no civilization."

True, but that doesn't prove causation. In this case it seems far more likely that some common personality trait is causing both, or two different personality traits.

"With the hair, faces, and skin color of the negroes, a reproducing pair does not spend much time together."

I don't think that's due to a lack of physical attraction. Kanazawa's research suggested African American, and presumably also African, women were less attractive due to higher testosterone levels. But those same high testosterone levels would also make the men far more horny, which would, in the absence of white or Asian women, more than compensate for any reduced attractiveness of the women. Which is of course why evolution wouldn't select against it. Higher testosterone levels in the women would also make the women more horny for the men. It's clearly not a lack of lust, so you need to look for a more platonic reason.

It's far more likely that something else is causing both partnerships and society to be depersonalised. But I don't think depersonalisation is the only thing holding back civilization. There are too many other psychometrics that Africans differ from other races on.

"Separate tribes of males and females are depersonalizing, and that contributed to an African society where slavery was common"

Possibly, but I don't think that's the main cause. You'd need to look at the rates of slavery between cultures that formed men and women into separate tribes compared to those that didn't. I don't think the results would support your theory.

"In the great Eurasian civilizations marriage and family are intensely important."

Your sweeping generalizations lack thoughtfulness and and are overly simplistic and display an almost childlike perspective regarding "negroes'. I cannot speak to the cultural norms in Africa, given that I am a resident of the U.S., but I can, and have made note of interesting racial trends in this country. In your comment you said that in the "great Eurasian civilizations' marriage and family are intensely important--and how right you are, especially if you take into consideration actual statistics form the 2008 census that highlight the "marriage out rates" for all ethic groups. It appears that amongst all Asian brides in the U.S., 40% of those women marry "other", mostly Caucasian men, the highest percentage among all ethnic groups. So apparently, for Asian women, marriage is really important, just not necessarily to Asian men. I would imagine attractiveness must play a part in this equation; perhaps, Mr. Kanazawa might due well to do a study on that issue instead of inventing fiction to support a faulty hypothesis. Incidentally, while the media would have us believe that black men and women are no longer marrying one another, the marriage out rate (as of that census report) for black men is 22% and 9% for black women, still not nearly as high for Asian women, but aren't they (stereotypically) high achievers, anyway?

Too little too late. Psychology Today needs to take responsibility for publishing racist garbage instead of having MORE people who AREN'T from the affect group discussing their feelings. I don't care what you or any other white guy feels about this situation. And I don't need some dude who looks like a subway flasher telling a whole group of women they are ugly.

Psychology Today needs to stop deleting facts that offend people. If you start deleting facts that offend people, all that will happen is more people deciding to get offended so they can control things. It's a never-ending spiral.

"And I don't need some dude who looks like a subway flasher telling a whole group of women they are ugly."

If you don't want to know things about whole groups, don't read psychology blogs. Group comparisons are psychology's main thing.

Removing a blog from Psychology Today is far from censorship. It's not as if someone is telling him that he has to remove all of his works from everywhere. Psychology just doesn't want to be held responsible for any more backlash than it already has gotten. It is, after all, a commercial website in business to make money. Removing something from it does not make it disappear, plenty of people are still reading the blog elsewhere and he is still free and clear to spout his BS.

Removing a blog from Psychology Today is, by definition, censorship. I guarantee you that most people ARE telling him that he has to remove all of his works from everywhere. It is illegal in most countries.

"It is, after all, a commercial website in business to make money."

WELL! That's OK then! (sarcasm) I'm sure when the burglar says "Sorry officer, but I am after all doing this to make money.", he'll just get a pat on the back and told to continue his crimes against innocent people. Especially when he says "It's not as if I stole ALL of their wealth from every room!"

Removing a blog from Psychology Today is far from censorship. It's not as if someone is telling him that he has to remove all of his works from everywhere. Psychology just doesn't want to be held responsible for any more backlash than it already has gotten. It is, after all, a commercial website in business to make money. Removing something from it does not make it disappear, plenty of people are still reading the blog elsewhere and he is still free and clear to spout his BS.

Removing a blog from Psychology Today is far from censorship. It's not as if someone is telling him that he has to remove all of his works from everywhere. Psychology just doesn't want to be held responsible for any more backlash than it already has gotten. It is, after all, a commercial website in business to make money. Removing something from it does not make it disappear, plenty of people are still reading the blog elsewhere and he is still free and clear to spout his BS.

Psychology today didn't post this, satoshi kanazawa did, psychology today's website is a platform for the psychologists and they are given a blog based on trust. If every single post had to be scrutinized before publishing, it would be very costly and time inefficient. For those of you trying to boycott the advertisers, the adverts are provided by google adwords, they do not choose to have their ads posted on psychology today but rather they are placed there by google based on an algorithm that places ads where they believe will get the most clicks.

Please, let's stop acting like Kanazawa is just putting something on his facebook page or on his front door. It was published on Psychology Today's website which makes the editors responsible for the consequences.

Psychology Today editors hired Kanazawa, who has a history of racially charged, questionable research, to blog on their site. If you aren't going "scrutinize" ever single post (which, frankly, hanging out on the site today, doesn't seem that hard at all, it's not that many posts per day to read and flag obviously problematic posts), then do a better job of vetting bloggers, or at least take responsibility when you hire someone who publishes terrible stuff.

Then, if your blogger breaks "trust" with you when he or she publishes terrible stuff, then part ways and be done with it.

To date Psychology Today editors have not done either of these basic action steps.

The consequences are irrelevant. Science can't censor facts based on the consequences. Reality is responsible for how it is, scientists can just measure it.

"consequences", "racially charged", "questionable", "terrible", "breaking trust"... You're completely missing the point of science. None of those things are relevant, or even definable. What matters is whether the facts are true or not, and whether they are about psychology. The lower attractiveness of fat women with high testosterone levels compared to slightly thinner women with lower testosterone levels, is an obvious truth, and is about psychology, regardless of whether it offends people or not.

Psychology Today needs to send a message to the whingers that science will not be compromised no matter how offended stupid, determinedly ignorant people are.

Check out my name RHILP, it's a fact. An irrelevant fact, since your intelligence is just potential, not results, but you seem to care so I thought you'd like to know.

You however, are clearly not using your brain.

Alisa: "which makes the editors responsible for the consequences"

RHILP: "The consequences are irrelevant. Science can't censor facts based on the consequences. Reality is responsible for how it is, scientists can just measure it.

What are you talking about? She's not talking about the consequences of science but of publishing awful, unscientific, deluded and badly-thought out articles masquerading as science. I would have thought a highly intelligent person would have better reading comprehension.

Reality is indeed how it is, and if 'reality' offends then that's just too bad. That's not what happened here. If he could defend his bigoted opinions scientifically we'd have something interesting to talk about. As it is he's embarrassed himself, this website, and everyone associated with his article.

"The lower attractiveness of fat women with high testosterone levels compared to slightly thinner women with lower testosterone levels, is an obvious truth, and is about psychology, regardless of whether it offends people or not."

Nope. You're an idiot. Have you read up on the genetic and social determinants of percieved attractiveness and failed to understand why you're wrong, or are you just completely ignorant?
Those are the only two options. Either you've read the current state of science, and failed to comprehend why the science shows that your statement is stupid, or you have not bothered to do the most basic of research and are speaking from a position of vapid ignorance.

"Psychology Today needs to send a message to the whingers that science will not be compromised no matter how offended stupid, determinedly ignorant people are."

No, Psychology Today needs to send a message to the people like Satoshi, who don't understand how science works, that this kind of bullshit is not science. Having an investigator assign a number value to their own perception of how attractive someone it does not make it objective. Your hypothesis is faulty, your investigation inept, and real scientists are busy laughing at you all over the blogosphere!

Unfortunately, there is one problem with high intelligence. It tends to make it harder to apply Occam's Razor. Reality favours simple explanations, while your brain longs for complex ones. I used to love coming up with convoluted politically correct explanations for simple non-politically correct things.

The other problem that affects everyone is that all the relevant research is regularly deleted by people like you, so even people like you are completely ignorant of the most basic psychology. Garbage in, garbage out, as they say.

I take it you haven't read any of the other articles on this site. The quality is usually much poorer than Satoshi's article.

"She's not talking about the consequences of science but of publishing awful, unscientific, deluded and badly-thought out articles masquerading as science."

No, I'm pretty sure she was talking about Satoshi's article, not those of his critics.

"As it is he's embarrassed himself, this website, and everyone associated with his article."

I don't think he's embarrassed. He seems quite comfortable writing articles for the public that are clearly true but not up to academic standards. Just like everyone else who blogs here. I'm sure the website is only embarrassed about not being politically correct enough, but the only way to do that is with more censorship of science.

And I noticed the part where he just drops how blacks are less intelligent than other races and keeps moving like that’s an accepted fact everyone already knows? I'm sure all you females other races have not only been assured of your attractiveness, but your intelligence too.

He does note that black women THINK that they are attractive, how deluded we were, now it has "subjectively evaluated", through science no less...

What's worse, Sam Sommers is so on point on how this Scientist will play it and this poor black woman is still waiting to see a publication date of 1950-something. "But no. Somebody wrote that RECENTLY. And someone else EDITED the damn thing. Then another person APPROVED the damn thing. And came up with several titles. And POSTED the damn thing to the effing INTERNET!!!!"

"And I noticed the part where he just drops how blacks are less intelligent than other races and keeps moving like that’s an accepted fact everyone already knows?"

It's an accepted fact, but most people don't know it. African Americans consistently perform almost a standard deviation worse than white people on any test of mental ability, and have done so since testing was started. It's called the achievement gap. Nobody's completely sure why, but it seems to have a large genetic component. And in case you're smart enough to wonder, the standard deviations for the two groups are about the same.

That's why intelligence testing of job applicants is illegal in the United States. It's said to have a "disparate impact" on black people, because they always score much lower, and thus would miss out on jobs.

Google "disparate impact" and "achievement gap". There's tons of information and legislation based on it.

On the other hand, North East Asians, like Kanazawa, consistently perform about a third of a standard deviation better than white people, or one and a third standard deviations better than African Americans. Ashkenazi Jews perform even better than the North East Asians, almost 2 standard deviations smarter than African Americans.

It's pretty bad news, which is why nobody has had the heart to tell you, and why everyone tries to delete all the science.

There is some good news though... African Americans are much more cheerful, have much higher self esteem, and are much less likely to get depression, or anxiety, or neurosis, and have much lower suicide rates. They're also much less likely to get osteoporosis (despite being lactose intolerant). They're also much more extroverted, which extroverts seem to think is a good thing.

All the research done in the 50s is still just as true today, and still exactly matches the modern research. It's just now we have political correctness, which places strict limits on what we are allowed to know.

I told you what to Google. I can't spend all day every day educating you ignoramuses. Do some darn studying yourself. Just go to your search engine and type it in.

'You also have to consider culture, historical factors which may affect the "standard" signs of intelligence....'

No, you have to consider how the culture and history could possibly have happened if not through low intelligence. Because there's no way African American culture and history makes any sense assuming equal mental ability.

I only 'seem' the way you say to people indoctrinated with political correctness.
I've been filling my head with facts for the past year, after I stopped being like you. Not surprisingly, facts generally contradict what dictators tell you you have to think, otherwise why would the dictators bother?

See this is what has been missing in my Black life, and most black people's lives that I know, (Mind you, I say black as in Black African, not only African American.): The reason for what I used to call racism.

The behaviour that I come across, I used to call it racism but the now the enlighten me now realises it to be the natural order of this. That disgusted look and that constant put down and mocking appeared so in my eyes but now thanks to you RHILP for pointing out that scientifically it is because I have to face it, I am not being put down or mocked but I am unattractive and I am inherently less intelligent as you and other RHILPs,(and there are lots of you)know this and treat me and mine as we should be treated. Now I know that when I am being put in my place it is so because it ACTUALLY IS my place. What I used to view as illusory superiority and disparate treatment is only the other race being themselves and me falling short.

I mean lets face it, if group X knew that that Group Y have been proven to be intrinsically inferior but for a few useless "good factors" but want to be treated as their equals, get the same jobs and opportunities as them it's only right that they get mad. See like you have done, science like this is put together with other science of the same nature and we have us The Poor Black Woman Me. Now that she is enlightened, she'll walk away knowing that there is no such thing as racism, the PC police have forced the superior race to remind the inferior race their place.

It is my greatest hope that the RHIPLs of this world will stand up like you have, as well as scientists like these and tell black people that it has been scientifically proven that they are they are the inferior race in ways that really count. Please believe that would at least give reason to the treatment that some black folks get, I know my little brothers will then understand why their teachers acts as if they have nothing to contribute in class or any of the other things we go through, it is because their teachers and all the rest are RHIPLs.

Unlike the RHILPs and Kanazawas of this world, I cannot find it within me to try and prove that Black people have other "good news traits" to contribute to the intellect and beauty of this world or find “inferiority” in other races, so I have nothing to disprove you with. Maybe some day some Kanazawa opposite will use science to come up with some good traits for this race, maybe they haven't because there are none, All I know is it won't be in my lifetime and with educators like Kanazawa educating more RHILPs it won't be in a long time. For now, this Poor Black Woman Me is now enlightened.

"The behaviour that I come across, I used to call it racism but the now the enlighten me now realises it to be the natural order of this. That disgusted look and that constant put down and mocking appeared so in my eyes but now thanks to you RHILP for pointing out that scientifically it is because I have to face it, I am not being put down or mocked but I am unattractive and I am inherently less intelligent as you and other RHILPs,(and there are lots of you)know this and treat me and mine as we should be treated. Now I know that when I am being put in my place it is so because it ACTUALLY IS my place. What I used to view as illusory superiority and disparate treatment is only the other race being themselves and me falling short."

That's bad news, but very true nonetheless. We all have that problem of course, not just black people. I'd like to think that I could be a millionaire business owner, and that the capitalist class are just unfairly taking positions that rightfully belong to working-class people like me. But the reality is that I don't have the genetic personality traits or the genetic abilities to make me capable of doing their job. They have the job, because they have the skills.

"It is my greatest hope that the RHIPLs of this world will stand up like you have, as well as scientists like these and tell black people that it has been scientifically proven that they are they are the inferior race in ways that really count. Please believe that would at least give reason to the treatment that some black folks get, I know my little brothers will then understand why their teachers acts as if they have nothing to contribute in class or any of the other things we go through, it is because their teachers and all the rest are RHIPLs."

I hope so too. If students like your little brother would recognise the difference between the wealth of knowledge, intelligence, and skill the teacher has compared to the complete lack of those that the student has, then they might actually use their ears and brains instead of their mouths and egos in class. And black schools could go back to being the places of learning they once (almost) were, instead of the hell-holes of anarchy they are now.

'I mean lets face it, if group X knew that that Group Y have been proven to be intrinsically inferior but for a few useless "good factors" but want to be treated as their equals, get the same jobs and opportunities as them it's only right that they get mad.'

Indeed. And when group X doesn't get mad (due to their intrinsically superior temperament and altruism), but rather bends over backwards to provide group Y with everything they demand and more, even at the cost of group X's entire future, it would be polite for group Y to say "Thank you", rather than complaining non-stop.

Of course the inferior group Y could be white people, and the more capable group X could be the Jews, or the North East Asians. Had white people recognised that Jews had actually EARNED their privileged place in society by being vastly more intelligent than whites, we wouldn't have had the Holocaust or World War II. That's why knowing our place is important. It stops us from killing all the Einsteins of the world and destroying ourselves.

'Unlike the RHILPs and Kanazawas of this world, I cannot find it within me to try and prove that Black people have other "good news traits" to contribute to the intellect and beauty of this world or find “inferiority” in other races, so I have nothing to disprove you with.'

Indeed. But if you were going to try, I'd go with something like black people having a greater innate ability to brainstorm. That would sound scientifically plausible.

"Maybe some day some Kanazawa opposite will use science to come up with some good traits for this race, maybe they haven't because there are none"

Cheerfulness is generally a good trait.

Aside from the cheerfulness, both options are possible. If you look at another completely unrelated race, such as Australian Aborigines, you will find some surprising mental abilities they have which are superior. Aborigines have an excellent spatial memory for where things were put, for example. That's despite performing worse than even Africans on most intellectual tasks.

"All I know is it won't be in my lifetime and with educators like Kanazawa educating more RHILPs it won't be in a long time."

Don't forget that most intrinsic deficiencies that people are born with can actually be treated with medication. eg. Asians, or white people, can be given steroids, or Tongkat Ali, in order to make them more like black people. Science is all about conquering nature and bending it to our will, so it's not all doom and gloom. Gene therapy will one day make it possible to rewrite your own DNA to give yourself genetic advantages you weren't born with.

It would have taken someone on the PT staff 10 minutes with Teh Google to find out that virtually every project he's published (although it's all the same hammer, evolutionary psychology, that he's using to whack every nail in sight) has been followed by papers and blog posts that decimate the work on scientific and statistical grounds. They could also find out that he was denied tenure at his first institution; granted, there are a lot of reasons why this can happen, many of which have little to do with the quality of the scholarship, but at the very least it should have sparked a bit more digging.

As with the climate change denials, the studies that make "provocative" -- and preferably right-wing -- claims get a lot more press than the studies that come along after to mop up the mess. If PT "hired" him because they thought it would generate web page hits, well, they deserve all the bad press they're getting.

"although it's all the same hammer, evolutionary psychology, that he's using to whack every nail in sight"

Funny that. It's not like every single brain function is actually a product of evolution! (sarcasm)

"has been followed by papers and blog posts that decimate the work on scientific and statistical grounds"

Funny how we only ever see the ones decimating it on Political Correctness grounds then.

'the studies that make "provocative" -- and preferably right-wing -- claims get a lot more press'

All the studies on this topic make provocative and "right-wing" claims, because that's what the data unambiguously says. It's impossible to do a study where black people actually perform well, because in reality that's never the case. And Political Correctness dictators know that, so they just ban all studies on the topic. The press are the enforcers of Political Correctness. I can assure you, they rarely allow any actual studies to get press.

Unfortunately denying global warming is politically correct. Global warming denial is another case of politics censoring science just because the results are extremely unpleasant to think about.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Actually, you only used it once but I could not resist the Princess Bride quote.

You clearly wouldn't recognise 'unambiguous' if it bit you. Have you had any scientific training, or are you just assuming you can wing it? Because, a hint here from a scientist: you're doing it wrong. Your constant references to 'science' are making a fool of you in the eyes of every actual scientist who reads what you write. You're a living demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

p.s. thanks for my name by the way. I use it just to message you, and now I'm stuck with a handle only a 'Random Very High Intelligence but Insecure Fragile-Ego' would use. FTR I'm very smart, but unlike you I know the things I write will demonstrate that, so I don't have to tell people. (It's like wearing a t-shirt that says 'Very Attractive', if you are then you don't need to say it, if you aren't you are only making a fool of yourself)

"Have you had any scientific training, or are you just assuming you can wing it?"

Everyone has had 12 years of scientific training. That's more than enough to understand the basic principle. Science isn't a particularly hard concept to understand, even if the results of it sometimes are.

"Because, a hint here from a scientist: you're doing it wrong. Your constant references to 'science' are making a fool of you in the eyes of every actual scientist who reads what you write."

I'm not actually doing any science. Just calling for the articles of those who are doing science to not be deleted for violating the dictates of Political Correctness. You don't need a lot of science experience to recognise that that's not compatible with scientific progress.

I think most people here understand the difference between science and political correctness. They just need constant nudging to resist the temptation of the latter, and reminded of the need for the former.

"FTR I'm very smart, but unlike you I know the things I write will demonstrate that, so I don't have to tell people."

You overestimate the other people on here. Half the people here have no ability to recognise intelligence, even with the Princess Bride quotes. I've been called low intelligence many times on here in the last couple of days, even with the prominent mention of my intelligence upfront. Average African American women come here to post because someone told them there's a racist here. Those of them who successfully work out how to post still wouldn't have an IQ much over 90. They aren't going to be familiar with intelligence or even recognise it as a valid concept.

Anything that's true is, in a sense, unfalsifiable. But I assume you mean assuming hypothetically that black women were more attractive than white women, or equally attractive, you couldn't come up with a test to show that. Any high-school student could easily come up with a test for that, and Kanazawa already has come up with a test for it, and given you the results of the test, which prove you wrong.

It's also dead easy to test whether African Americans are obese, or whether they have high levels of testosterone. But you won't like the answers.

As for testing how much the testosterone levels explain the unattractiveness, that's pretty easy to test too, although I don't think Kanazawa's done it yet.

Pseudoscience is something like Astrology. But there is no sign of anything even vaguely similar to pseudoscience in anything of Kanazawa's. You should be deeply ashamed that you can't see the difference between male sex hormones making women less attractive, compared to say the arrangement of stars and planets in the sky when they were born making women less attractive. One is a scientific hypothesis, the other is insane.

'There will be allegations that he's a victim of "political correctness" and has been pilloried for discussing that which the rest of us are too timid to address.'

There's probably a reason for those allegations... I can't imagine what that reason could be... can you? (sarcasm)

"Of course, the problem wasn't raising the issue of race and attractiveness; it was offering imprecise conclusions with half-assed and offensive explanations and passing it off as scientific analysis."

No, of course not (very heavy sarcasm). Nothing to do with it being about race and attractiveness. Even though you just accidentally used the word "offensive" in that very same sentence, but I'm sure (sarcasm) you really meant to say "accurate". Nothing to do with offending a certain race, whatsoever. Why, I'm sure you delete articles with sloppy explanations all the time (heavy sarcasm), like that time, ah, um, ah, well, OK, so you never delete articles that are poorly explained. In fact I'm sure this outrageously sloppy blog-post of yours is going to be deleted any second now (sarcasm)... Oh, your blog's still here. Well, that kind of disproves your point.

I'm really surprised you can type these things with a straight face. You have no integrity whatsoever, do you? There's not the slightest tinge of guilt in there somewhere? It's hard to imagine what that's like.

"And there will inevitably be some tongue-in-cheek reference to a Black female celebrity that he finds attractive, complete with cleavage-focused photo to bolster his assertion of personal impartiality."

Why does he need to bolster his assertion of personal impartiality? He had nothing to do with the assessment.

"as the immediate and vocal responses demonstrate, this particular blog post is anything but representative of the current state of psychological science"

As the immediate and vocal responses demonstrate, the current state of psychological "science" is in the toilet.

Nevermind the scientific merits or lack thereof, but to what end was this article to go? Justifying eugenics? Are we forgetting already? I ask these questions as a mixed person who relishes the variability and beauty present in all members of my extended family with our own widely varying representations of: Caucasian, African American and Hispanic/Latino.

As a person falling within the very wide spectrums of both White America and Black America, this episode has pained me. I work hard to reassure my family of how psychology can help us heal, if just a little. I work hard to reassure my family of how psychology can help us to understand dementia and caregiving. Using the science of psychology to denegrate a people harms my efforts. To be honest, this episode threatens my trust in humanity. I work hard to combat the distrust within myself that has been past down from generation to generation, so that I can reach out to others who are undone by some aspects of that distrust that are not as necessary and may be undoing.

How was that article to benefit those seeking services from psychology, nevermind the bad science? It does much harm. Is this a direction we want to sanction? Many of us, as clinicians, work very tenaciously to assist those who have suffered disfiguring injuries, illnesses, or plain aging. These incidences often challenge a person's sense of attractiveness and we work to combat any undue injury to their self concepts so that they can stay active, healthy, and unafraid to participate in the world. I cannot think of a humane reason as to why we would want to prove any particular group as less attractive than another, let alone state that there are inherent, biological reasons. How ugly.

It is a slap in the face to see that "Find a Therapist," tab, knowing that if many of my clients saw the original article, it would build even further their distrust in the services that I offer.

"Nevermind the scientific merits or lack thereof, but to what end was this article to go?"

Science doesn't have an end. It just tells you things that are true. Once people know some things that are true it's easier to research other things that are true, and it's easier to make policy. But it's usually just done to satisfy people's curiosity.

"Justifying eugenics?"

I haven't heard of anyone wanting eugenics in terms of attractiveness. Normally eugenics is more concerned with preventing serious genetic disabilities, and sometimes people suggest eugenics for intelligence, eg. bribing smart black women to have more children (currently the most intelligent black women tend to have no children, while the least intelligent have lots).

"I work hard to reassure my family of how psychology can help us heal,"

You said your whole family is attractive. So why do they care if most other African American women are less attractive than most other white women?

"To be honest, this episode threatens my trust in humanity."

Why? Humanity can still be trusted if African American women aren't as attractive as white women. In fact, humanity can be trusted more if someone was honest enough to tell you.

"I work hard to combat the distrust within myself that has been past down from generation to generation"

Well, keep working at it. Most people are trustworthy.

"How was that article to benefit those seeking services from psychology"

Well, if they're seeking reassurance that they're not the only woman out there who's considered unattractive due to high testosterone levels, or obesity, then it might be beneficial.

"Many of us, as clinicians, work very tenaciously to assist those who have suffered disfiguring injuries, illnesses, or plain aging."

Well, they'll be glad to know that those weren't considered to be the factors affecting attractiveness in this study. And that lots of people without those problems are still less attractive.

never thought i'd say this but this site and esp the boards are as bad as...no, worse than the CNN boards/discussions...a scientific study on the attractiveness of people? and some of you people are defending it? who cares what/who is more attractive...get a life, go get a job or hobby and stay off of the computer b/c most of you seem to have way too much time on your hands...

Simply...as a magazine that tries to educate, enlighten and encourage rational thoughts, how dare you post such racist writings. Any respect that I once had for your magazine has been wiped away. If you continue to publicize any further blog posts from this racist ph.d - you are just as bad as he is!

Maybe Mr. Satoshi Kanazawia could perform a study on why Asian men have much smaller penises or why Asian women marry outside of their race more than any other race? Maybe Asian men are inferior from the neck below.

"why Asian women marry outside of their race more than any other race?"

If you rank the races on femininity, asians are the most feminine and sub-saharan africans are the least feminine, with whites in the middle. The other way of saying this would be to say asians are less masculine (what you're saying) and africans are more masculine (what Kanazawa is saying). Somewhat counter-intuitively, this is all because asia has had patriarchy going back thousands of years, which feminized both sexes there, while africa went in exclusively for matriarchies going all the way back, which masculinized both sexes - but that's another story.

Once the planet goes global, being more feminine helps asian women in the mating and marrying game, while being less masculine hurts asian men. Being less feminine hurts african women and being more masculine helps african men.

It's all there in the interracial marriage data here in the great melting pot: men of african descent marry outside their race to the exact same extent women of asian descent marry outside theirs. There is no other simple theory which accounts for the observational data so neatly.

African women and asian men, ironically, thus have much more in common than anyone seems to be aware of, as both are disadvantaged in this regard once people are able to choose freely who they marry. They both lose at the expense of african men and asian women, who are the lucky beneficiaries of having a much bigger pool of prospective mates from which to choose.

Your small penis remark is essentially identical to Kanazawa's conclusion that african women are viewed as being less attractive than their competitors from other races, just as asian males are viewed as being less attractive compared to other males.

"Racism" does not imply untruth. A scientific conclusion can be both offensive and true. Ones feelings about the matter are irrelevant.